Classification of the design research

According to Hubka and Eder (2012a), “Design science is to be understood as a system of logically related knowledge, which should contain and organise the complete knowledge about and for designing”. Designing as emphasized is, for example, “the process of applying various techniques and scientific principles for the purpose of defining a device, a process, or a system in sufficient detail to permit its physical realisation” (Taylor, 1959) or “a purposeful activity directed towards the goal of fulfilling human needs, particularly those which can be met by the technology factors of our culture and, Decision-making in face of uncertainty” (Asimow, 1962).

Design is referred to with many variations. It is primarily an action in terms of design activities and design process but also the actual output of a design process. As Design (action) spans several knowledge disciplines, including cognitive and behavioral neuroscience, psychology, sociology, complexity science, decision theory, calculus, computer science and cybernetics to name a few, it is sometimes debated that design research is not scientific, at least as compared to the sophisticated theories, research methodologies and procedures of some of the field sciences it involves (Eckert, Stacey, & Clarkson, 2003). Such debate has shown irrelevant because Design research is inherently multidisciplinary and may therefore be conducted according to the specific aspect/question the Design research is attempting to resolve. In all cases, design research is fairly differentiated from the related disciplines by firstly being “concerned with a complex creative and heterogeneous human activity” that produces design artefacts as a whole; and secondly,

“concerned with finding practical ways to improve human performance in complex tasks”

(Eckert et al., 2003). Indeed, design research is a scientific field of its own right which is related to Engineering Sciences. It has been a research-intensive field since the 60’s with the purpose of

understanding, modelling and building a theory of Design (Cross, 1984; Hubka & Eder, 2012a).

Design research is dual-faceted. It is both involved with the interpretation of designing as a phenomenon (understanding) and the improvement of the process being studied (support) (Blessing & Chakrabarti, 2009; Eckert et al., 2003). To elaborate, developing understanding refers to studying the designer, the activity, the object, the context in which the activity takes place and the context of use of the resulting artefact in order to build and verify theories on designing as a phenomenon. Developing support, as it pertains to the larger part of this thesis, refers to creating knowledge, processes and tools to support the design activity in relation to the context in which it is performed. Hubka and Eder (2012a) propose a classification of design research that is shown in the form of a radar or a compass below. The axis and poles of the compass are meant to classify a research by the subject (object, technical system vs. process) and the output of the research (descriptive theory building statements vs. prescriptive statements to improve the process or the technical system). As an example, developing understanding as described by Blessing and Chakrabarti (2009) would correspond to the lower half of the compass while developing support would better fit with the upper part.

Statements

Figure 3.1: Classification of Design Science. Adapted from (Hubka & Eder, 2012a)

The contribution to Design science of the current research is reflected on the figure. As depicted on the radar, the contribution’s footprint sits on the two quadrants on the right side because it is involved with developing understanding of SBCE (knowledge) as a Design process on one hand, and, on the other hand, improving this process while developing supporting tools and methodologies.

Chapter 2 (review of the literature) has contributed to understanding of SBCE (knowledge), the state of the art in the field and the research opportunities with regards to the current research. These opportunities have been formulated into questions that the research attempts to answer by validating the hypotheses. As observed during the design of the SBCE dual analysis framework, SBCE belongs to the lean philosophy and it consists in foundational theories and principles that are shared and accepted within the community and believed to be further theorized through reasoning, experience and research. This is to say, the SBCE philosophy, theories and principles, as discussed during the systematic review, are collectively accepted, not reconsidered but rather studied and implemented in a constructivist-pragmatist way in order to confirm the premises or formulate a more complete theory of set-based design. The current research will adopt the same stance. Likewise, the research questions correspond to inquiries into the interdisciplinary interactions within the design and product development process while discovering and understanding the enablers and catalysts of the practice of SBCE in a context-specific setting i.e. aerospace product development, multi-domain product structuring practices, configurable virtual product and harmonized prototyping practices. This suggests a research of a qualitative type which may potentially use elements of quantitative analysis to make sense of the data in order to derive qualitative conclusions. Such use of quantitative analysis has already proven effective for the systematic review of data extracted from the research publications databases, see chapter 2. It was observed during the systematic review that SBCE research is marked by this common pattern inquiries (due to the state of the research in the field), which then makes SBCE research, as it stands now, predominantly qualitative, inductive, and proceeding through natural inquiries. The current research does not constitute an exception in that sense.

The selection of the appropriate method(s) for the current research is influenced by two factors:

- The research objective, which is towards identifying key practical SBCE catalysts in order to cohesively study them and develop models and methodologies that can support the transition from traditional PD to LPD and SBCE. This denotes a requirement to develop conceptual frameworks following the exploration of the theoretical framework. The research is then viewed as conceptual from this perspective.

- The practical implications of the research and the direct involvement of the author into the lean Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) transformation of a manufacturer of complex aerospace systems. As a business consultant and architect in PLM, the author is actively engaged with its community in a vast program, spanning several years, with the purpose of transforming their processes and integrating their value streams into an end-to-end lifecycle process (inception to service) supported by lean practices and modern PLM technology. This calls for action research (practical/participatory) as the research typically involves the author in a community, developing understanding of phenomena and answering questions to proactively transform the community or to define how change can occur in the community (Creswell et al., 2007; Paillé &

Mucchielli, 2016).

While the research, by its nature and objective, necessitates the research-based, model-based and pilot approach, the natural settings of the author’s community transformation also prompts ethnomethodology to study the concepts, artefacts and methods people use in the community for understanding and producing the social order in which they live (Bucciarelli, 1994; Button, 2000). It is commonly agreed that engineering design is not a purely technical activity but also a social activity, involving the complexity of social organisation (Bucciarelli, 1994; Lloyd, 2000). This may necessitate ethnographic approaches in order to understand and better study many aspects of the design and development activities. Fieldwork and ethnomethodology are therefore increasingly advocated within the engineering design research community with evidences of the positive impacts on the research as well as the new insights into Design they can provide (Bucciarelli, 1994; Button, 2000; Lloyd, 2000; Lloyd & Deasley, 1998).

For the current research, observations, experience, structured focus groups (transformational workshops campaign), two pilot simulations and a real life experimentation represent the main source of data for the study. Corporate artefacts such as manuals, process maps, operating procedures, work instructions, internal documents, databases, etc. also represent valuable sources

for the data collection. Qualitative coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), displays (Miles &

Huberman, 1994), content analysis and analytical memos (Maxwell, 2012; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) are used as the main techniques for arranging and presenting the captured data with the purpose of facilitating insight, comparison, and the development of the theory and proposed methodology.

The figure below summarizes the current research paradigm (highlighted) in the context of the SBCE research analysis framework introduced in chapter 2.

Figure 3.2: Research paradigm

The previous positions the research from an epistemological and overall paradigm standpoint. Next section elaborates on the overarching methodology that is used for planning and executing the design research project while ensuring that focus is placed on achieving substantial progress with regards to understanding and implementation of SBCE and LPD as Design practices.